WATERWAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING NO 54
7.30 pm, Tuesday 13th January 2015
Present: Louise Robertson (Chair), Adrian Olsen, Imogen Olsen, Mary Tovey, Paula
Reynolds, Nicholas Orme, Ann Hall, Tao Tao Chou, Raquel Stremme.
In attendance: Jeetindar Gill, OM and Richard Dorey, WRACIC
Guests: Lyn Bibbings and Greg Barnes for the railway line development item
Minute taker: Emma Thompson
- Apologies
1.1 Sally Duncan, Hilary Sorensen, Adrian Mourby. - Welcome and introductions
2.1 Lynn and Greg were welcomed to the meeting and those present introduced
themselves and thanked the two guests for researching in depth the situation
regarding the railway developments and the implications for the development. - Minutes
Approval of the minutes from meeting 53 (11/11/14)
3.1 The minutes were approved as an accurate record. - Matters arising from the minutes
Railway Development
4.1 It was reported that the East-West Rail project Phases 2a and 2b (previously known
as Evergreen3) would result in a second route to Marylebone from Oxford via Oxford
Parkway station which was being built at the Water Eaton Park and Ride. It would
eventually continue to Bedford and Cambridge, although funding had only been
made available at present as far as Bedford.
4.2 Contrary to what had originally been proposed, another line was no longer going to
be constructed alongside the Waterways development. As a result, National Rail was
no longer pursuing noise, vibration and mitigation studies for the area despite
Condition 19 of the planning conditions which stated that development should not
commence within each individual section of the proposed scheme until the predicted
vibration effects of the railway had been submitted in writing and approved by the
local planning authority.
4.3 The revisions to the line would result in the movement of up to 28 trains per night,
with freight trains increasing in length and speed. A new freight train passing loop at
Wolvercote would allow passenger trains to overtake freight trains before the main
Oxford station. Several benefits would arise from the development – namely the
removal of the requirement for train drivers to sound the horn prior to the allotments
2
due to the closure of the crossing and the removal of the need for the freight trains to
halt adjacent to housing in the Waterways development. However, these would not
outweigh concerns around the apparent significant increase in volume of traffic and
the failure of National Rail to uphold Condition 19 of the planning conditions.
4.4 The Secretary of State for Transport, the Chair of the Transport Select Committee,
the Chief Executive of the Office of Rail Regulation, the MD of Chiltern Railways and
the CEO of Network Rail together with councillors for Oxford City and County
Councils and several newspapers had been appraised of this oversight together with
the impact of the railway development on the local communities which had been
verified by an independent study undertaken by Arup.
4.5 A consultation pertaining to a second project for a western route had recently closed
which included reference to a potential flyover located at the Oxford North Junction or
at Didcot. Worryingly even the professionals were uncertain as to the exact position
of the Oxford North Junction which cast doubt on the management of the project and
the decisions which were being made and even the local planning department
seemed unaware of the existence of the Waterways development to which there had
been no apparent site visit.
4.6 The primary objectives for those concerned about these developments included:
(a) Arranging a meeting between the Secretary of State for Transport, Nicola
Blackwood MP, Network Rail and representatives from the local residents to
discuss the noise and vibration levels and mitigation measures which could be
proposed
(b) Securing a site visit by the Planning Officers/Committee so that they can
appreciate the impact of the proposals relating to these two projects.
4.7 Independent of these developments, Network Rail had been removing vegetation. As
Berkeley Homes remained the land owner, the developer had been given a copy of
Network Rail’s understanding of the boundary to avoid the removal of trees from land
under the management of the Waterways Management Company.
4.8 It was agreed that:
(a) Owners should be notified of the proposals once further information was made
available. This would also help form the content of an article in Waterways World.
It was considered prudent that more channels of communication to raise the
issue would be useful.
(b) A meeting between officials and affected residents should be held
(c) A member should forward the name of the Head Planner for Network Rail.
Matters arising
4.9 It was noted that no further communication had been received regarding the
provision of white parking bay markings in the Crescent on Elizabeth Jennings Way.
The matter would remain open but no further action at present was deemed
necessary.
4.10 OM reported that they had raised an order with contractors to remove the property
number painted on a parking space in Stone Meadow as the individual concerned
had been given 10 days to remove the markings and they had not complied.
4.11 It was reported that several residents had received surface water drainage refunds
but other residents had been refused. A map of the drainage across the development
3
was tabled at the meeting. It was agreed that an article in the Waterways World
outlining the potential to receive a refund may be confusing if there was a lack of
clarity around who may, or may not, be eligible. As a result, those who had received
a refund should notify the Chairman so that an indication of those residents/owners
who might be entitled could be established.
4.12 It was noted that suppliers had been engaged to remove the pigeon droppings which
had been accumulating on the porch of 2-32 Elizabeth Jennings Way.
4.13 It was reported that whilst the rat infestation in Complins Close appeared to have
gone, the entry point remained, meaning that the situation remained unresolved. - Possibility of a Waterways ‘character study’ for the local plan
5.1 It was noted that the local councillor, Liz Wade, had indicated that she could be
available on either Saturday 24th January or an evening to discuss the preparation of
the character study document. The Chairman would contact the councillor to identify
a mutually agreeable date and inform interested directors accordingly. - Proposed new management agreement with OM/First Port
6.1 OM informed those present that it had become apparent that there was no up to date
agreement in place between the WMC and OM. The last version was dated 2000 and
several amendments had been made to the document.
6.2 Directors expressed concern that whoever had issued the paperwork did not appear
to be familiar with the membership of the WMC which should be resolved. In the
meantime, it was agreed that the Scrutiny Committee would review the paperwork
and report back its findings to the main Committee. - Health and Safety
7.1 It was noted that a payment had now been made to the resident to compensate them
for materials used to put additional safety measures on the swale. It was agreed that
OM should arrange for the area of mesh to be extended for added security. The loss
adjusters had now inspected the correct part of the site but had yet to submit their
report.
7.2 Councillor Howson and David Tole had visited the development to discuss the
potential to extend existing yellow lines. Whilst in attendance they had agreed that
noise mitigation was required on the existing rumble strips and that extra road
markings should be introduced by the first roundabout on Elizabeth Jennings Way for
safety. The Highways Department had confirmed that any changes would be done as
if the development may one day become a controlled parking zone, with parking bays
being clearly marked on the roads and the dropped curb at the end of the walkway
between the development and Bainton Road would be moved to its correct position.
Funding, however, remained an issue and a consultation would be undertaken prior
to any action. In the meantime, no objections would be raised if additional lines were
introduced by the WMC on unadopted roads. It was also identified that Frenchay
4
Road was still signposted as a cul-de-sac and yellow lines would be included on one
side of the road to remove the potential for obstruction. - Sub-Committee round up
8.1 Finance Sub-Committee
8.1.1 The Treasurer confirmed that they would arrange a meeting between OM and
Scrutiny Committee to discuss the reserve fund and how it should be apportioned
across the respective schedules for the development.
.8.2 Apartment Sub-Block Committee
8.2.1 A complaint had been received regarding the quality of the finish of internal painting
within the apartment block on Stone Meadow. It was agreed that the ASBC should
attend to view the standard of the finish.
8.2.2 An update was provided on Section 20 consultations which comprised of roof repairs
to an apartment block in Frenchay Road.
8.3 Gardening Sub-Committee
8.3.1 The WMC was notified of the current expenditure incurred in removing the silt from
the balancing pond. Further work was still required to remove silt which was reducing
the flow of water through the siphon. In addition to Lanes for Drains, AES had been
asked to quote for the disposal of the remaining material. A separate analysis of the
silt would be conducted at a cost of circa £240 to determine whether it was
contaminated to reduce disposal costs which remained uncertain.
8.3.2 It was noted that whilst there were sufficient reserve funds to cover the additional
costs required for the silt removal it was discussed whether it would be prudent to
use all the available funds on one particular issue on the development. A number of
options were considered including delaying work on the wildlife corridor and levying
an additional service charge for the water channel clearance on each property.
8.3.3 It was proposed that quotations should be obtained from Lanes for Drains and AES
for the remaining clearance work and confirmation should be received whether this
could be undertaken before the end of March. Depending upon which company was
the cheapest, clarification should be sought from the Council that they would have no
objections to a change in potential supplier in terms of paying their contribution to the
silt removal. Once all this information was known, the WMC should determine
whether an additional charge should be raised at year-end.
8.3.4 Volunteers were sought for the Waterways graffiti-busting team. A number of those
present expressed a desire to become involved. The Canal and Riverside Trust
would be contacted to arrange a suitable date and time for those concerned to
receive training.
8.3.5 It was noted that 77 bikes remained tagged and would be removed on 20th January.
They had been photographed and indexed to allow anyone to claim their bicycle in
the event that it was removed in error despite the numerous communications about
the exercise.
5
8.3.6 The owner of 26 Cox’s Ground had been approached to reinstate the mature planting
which had been removed by tenants. The owner remained reticent to make good the
area on the basis that there was no guarantee that the plants would not be removed
again.
8.3.7 A satellite dish had appeared on the side of a ground floor apartment block on
Frenchay Road which was contrary to the transfer deeds and unnecessary given
there was a communal satellite dish for the apartment block. It was agreed that this
should be investigated and the owner asked to remove the dish.
8.3.8 OM reported that it had yet to issue the letters to the residents concerned in Lark Hill
and Elizabeth Jennings Way reminding them of the clauses relating to the storage of
bins but that a contractor had been appointed to provide a ramp in order to allow
residents to move their bins easily to their back gardens. It was noted that residents
had also complained in Complins Close at the number of bins being left at the front of
properties.
8.3.9 It was noted that Liz Wade had contacted the Royal Mail to undertake repairs on our
historic post box.
8.4 Scrutiny Sub-Committee
8.4.1 It was reported that the Committee had issued the assessment criteria to ABSC and
GSC with which to monitor OM’s performance.
8.4.2 Following negative press reports concerning OM, the WMC had sought confirmation
that none of the suppliers being used or recommended by OM were part of the
Peverel Group of Companies. It had been noted that Kingsborough was responsible
for tendering for the insurance for one apartment block. OM had reviewed the
premiums being levied by this company and could confirm that they were lower than
other suppliers.
8.4.3 The WMC brought to OM’s attention the dissatisfaction felt with the care and
attention given to the development by Huntingdon’s, a supplier responsible for
working at height. The WMC requested that they should be asked to put boards
down prior to using cherry pickers or other contracting equipment to avoid any further
damage to paving slabs and parking areas.
9 Feedback
9.1 It was noted that apartment residents continued to block communal areas with
bicycles and pushchairs and store items in electrical cupboards. It was
recommended that apartment block residents should be reminded about fire safety
and be asked to remove items from hallways.
6
10 WRACIC
10.1 Whilst the Christmas event had been extremely successful, no volunteers had been
forthcoming to keep the WRA viable. A further recruitment drive would be held at the
forthcoming AGM. In the meantime, it was proposed that St Margaret’s Institute
should be contacted again to establish whether it might be interested in administering
the room bookings for the community room as the Institute had insufficient space for
the bookings it was receiving.
11 Managing Agent
11.1 No items reported.
12 Any other business
12.1 It was reported that 16 Complins Close was due to resubmit a planning application
which had taken into account some of the previous concerns raised by neighbours.
12.2 It was agreed that planning for the April AGM should commence.
13 Date, time and location of future meetings
13.1 It was noted that future meetings would be held at 7.30 pm in the Community
Meeting Room as follows:
10th March 2015
12th May 2015
14th July 2015
15th September 2015
17th November 2015
12th January 2016
15th March 2016
Addendum:
Following a public meeting held on 5th March 2015 at the North Oxford Community Centre
attended by the Junior Transport Minister and Nicola Blackwood, MP, it was confirmed that
another line will be constructed alongside the Waterways development and Oxford City
Council are in discussion with National Rail regarding the provision of noise and vibration
mitigation measures.